A few days ago, while discussing the merits of extending unemployment benefits with Hardball host Chris Matthews, congressman Jim McDermott may have gotten a little carried away. He just had to invoke little baby Jesus while attempting to justify giving the unemployed 99 weeks worth of benefits.
His statement upset opinion program host Bill O'Reilly, who went on to say in his column that while "Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own...guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that." O'Reilly argues that not making such a distinction creates a nanny-state that is hard on the economy and ultimately self-destructive. He goes on to say, "being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive."
A good argument? Yes. And he obviously struck a nerve as the left-wing side of the media is up in arms about it. Even funny-man turned anchorman Stephen Colbert got a bit upset.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat | ||||
| ||||
So what's the big deal here? Congressman McDermott was absolutely right in inferring that a true Christian, especially in this time of "baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff", would happily help the less fortunate. Colbert is absolutely right in his assertion that Christ would have us help anybody, without first judging them to find out if they "deserve" your help. And Bill O'Reilly is correct in his claim that excessive government income-intervention can lead to a self-destruction economic death spiral.
What I find so interesting in all of this is that O'Reilly and Colbert both miss the real point. All their arguments seem to be based upon the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should be taking care of the less fortunate. In O'Reilly's defense, he did say that Christ helped those who help themselves, but he still assumes that the government is what should provide that help.
Conservatives know that government is the worst entity to provide such "help". Government is not a charity. Government is the entity that society creates in order to protect itself from foreign threats, provide some infrastructure, and to create order to protect us from the crazies out there, period. Large, centralized government is inefficient, wasteful, corruptible, and slow. President Obama proved this point perfectly when he claimed that he would take the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare and put it into Obama-care (as if an even larger medical entitlement program would have less waste than it's smaller cousin). The entity that does charity work the best is...wait for it...CHARITY.
Additionally, having moneys forcefully taxed then given to others is not charitable, let alone Christ-like, it's social justice, or in other words, income redistribution. Somebody once told me that if a guy on the street demanded that you give him your money it'd be robbery, but if that same thug petitioned Washington to pass a law requiring your money, it'd just be called a tax. Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else, it's not really government anymore. It's government committing highway robbery in order to pose as a charity. As Maggie Thatcher would say, that would only work until the government runs out of your money.
Back to Jim McDermott. He, as do many liberals, infers that the Christian thing to do would be to pay your taxes happily because some of your taxed income might help the needy and that it is just as Christ-like to support the government's extending, and extending, and extending of so-called "benefits". While Christ did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I don't think he'd say your soul is better off in regards to its salvation just because some of Caesar's money may go to help the poor. Why? Because that money is taken from you at the threat of going to prison. You must give that money away. If you don't believe me, just try to be a bit less charitable to the IRS for a year or two.
Really, what's so charitable about being forced to give up part of your income? True charitable giving is about taking money that you have no real obligation to give to anybody and willfully giving it to those who need it more than you. That, not paying your taxes, is Christ-like.
It's evident to conservatives that charitable giving is given freely from the heart, not taken at the threat of imprisonment, and that we should all give to the needy willingly, without pretense or judgment. However, it's also evident to conservatives that the government can't afford to finance the day to day lives of millions of Americans and expect to remain financially solvent for long. So how do we help the poor while maintaining a financially viable country? Simple. Do all we can to make government as lean as possible and leave the charitable giving to those who do it best....charities.
No comments:
Post a Comment